or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World - Page 3

post #61 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steen DK View Post

I went to a film restoration seminar (possibly a lecture - I'm not quite sure about the distinction in English) a couple of years ago and this type of effect appeared on a number of the old, faded prints they ran as part of the demonstration.

edit: That's why I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with any kind of digital sharpening, as these were celluloid prints.

Quite correct. Take a look at an original print of Dr. No, and you'll see red outlines around white formal shirts and tuxedos.

RAH
post #62 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steen DK View Post

Since you never see edge enhancement anyway (even when it's glaringly obvious - say, Back to the Future), that would be pretty pointless.

Sorry. Point out the time and I'll go find it and look. And then if it's something else we can all learn exactly what rather than just jumping to the same old conclusions. The post above mine is correct - I've seen "examples" of "edge enhancement" or "halos" that are no more than backlight bouncing off someone. I was in a transfer room this very day looking at a transfer that has had no manipulation whatsoever - and I'd bet you a lot of money that someone will come on one of these boards, post a screencap, and call some backlit thing or something that's a result of printing or the original photography edge enhancement and haloing. Only they'll be really wrong. Obviously, some transfers are guilty of many transgressions - Mad World is not one of them.
post #63 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Point out the time and I'll go find it and look.

In Back to the Future? From beginning till end. Because the EE affects the entire image all the time.
post #64 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steen DK View Post

In Back to the Future? From beginning till end. Because the EE affects the entire image all the time.

If you can stop being who you are for just a minute - no, not BTTF - It's a Mad World - I want the guy to give me a specific time so I can see the sharpening and halos he thinks he sees. That's really not so hard, is it? Or are you now agreeing with him about Mad World?
post #65 of 121
Okay so more than Halos there is a harsh electronic sharpened look to this no doubt as for an example for halos is during the scene indoors between 45:50 ish to 47:30 ish. Both actors have halos in an indoor scene with the gentleman on the left haveing a classic halo and Spencer Tracy's arm having an incredibly hard edge to his arm completely unnatural very dark black line. Anyone defending (not saying you did as I have no idea what your position was on bttf) BTTF and that can't see tons of DNR and EE in said film should be completely disqualified from having an opinion about sharpening and EE. BTTF bd's are trash that have been tampered with in almost every conceivable way that's not to say the master was outdated but it at least resembled film before they got through raping it.
Anyway back to its a mad mad mad etc.. its on the whole a fine release and nothing to complain about but having scanned enough film myself I can tell you it doesn't take a genius to recognize it has a mild harsh sharpness to it.


P.S. This is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. :-)

Also at 27:00 minutes there is another indoor scene with completely unnatural halo on the policeman's left side, tell me how there is that much light emanating from the wall where the map is to cause this halo if its natural. Spencer Tracy's right edge of his profile also has an unnatural edge to it being incredibly dark black as if someone took a jet black marker to his right edge as well as there being a halo on his tie.
These kinds of algorithms cause halos where edges are that have dark colors and enhance the look.

post #66 of 121
There is some sharpening done, but it is not resulting in classic halos, imo much preferable to what we had before and still soemtimes get with certain titles. The last cap with the policeman shows an optical effect that has been exaggerated by this enhancement, it would have a lesser amplitude if no sharpness had been used.

Personally I can still live with that kind of sharpening but would hope that whoever does it could use a setting that is a little lower, maybe 50 to 70% of what we have now, same with The Sound of Music.

BTW: I have seen quite obvious halos of that kind in Lawrence of Arabia so I look forward to the debates when that one comes out

And with regard to sharpening and film: Sometimes film gets processed in a way that makes it sharper at least in case of the prints and if you would see a capture from that kind of print you might think it has been sharpened in the digital domain. An example of that would be a 70mm print of the forgotten masterpiece of storytelling and special effects Krakatoa East of Java that I have screened a few years ago
post #67 of 121
I agree its preferred over the extreme kind of sharpening that has been applied in the past as this is mild and doesn't bother me as much. It is all in all considering more than I was expecting as I was pleasantly surprised and I am happy with the purchase.
post #68 of 121
Would somone who owns this movie be kind enough to post the UPC?

Thanks very much.
post #69 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herve View Post

Would somone who owns this movie be kind enough to post the UPC?

Thanks very much.

8 83904 24242 0

Also, to the right of the UPC bar code there is another short bar code with "80" below it.
post #70 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by yimitz View Post

8 83904 24242 0

Also, to the right of the UPC bar code there is another short bar code with "80" below it.

Thanks! But when I go here:
http://www.checkupc.com/search.php?keyword=883904242420
and plug that number in, you see the result>
post #71 of 121
The person that thought this 65mm source needed digital enhancement is an idiot.
Wont be buying this.
I know its not "Halo Heaven" (TM); just i don't like my 60's films looking digital.
It's badd enough "Zulu" does, let alone beautiful modern films like "The New World".
If I just had-2-have this title, I'd buy it, butt I don't have-2-have it!

I'd rather have an old loser transfer like "A Fish Called Wanda", which from the review I saw looks bleak, however doesn't show "Digital Debris" (TM).
post #72 of 121
I personally think there is some mild sharpening going on.
post #73 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

The person that thought this 65mm source needed digital enhancement is an idiot.
Wont be buying this.
I know its not "Halo Heaven" (TM); just i don't like my 60's films looking digital.
It's badd enough "Zulu" does, let alone beautiful modern films like "The New World".
If I just had-2-have this title, I'd buy it, butt I don't have-2-have it!

I'd rather have an old loser transfer like "A Fish Called Wanda", which from the review I saw looks bleak, however doesn't show "Digital Debris" (TM).

I notice you're from wine country. Reading your post, perhaps you've had a few glasses too many?

There is nothing digital-looking about Mad World, and you wouldn't buy it anyway, and you base you're buying decisions solely on what a handful of people on a message board say, even though an equal number say differently? Have another glass and enjoy A Fish Called Wanda.
post #74 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

I notice you're from wine country. Reading your post, perhaps you've had a few glasses too many?

There is nothing digital-looking about Mad World, and you wouldn't buy it anyway, and you base you're buying decisions solely on what a handful of people on a message board say, even though an equal number say differently? Have another glass and enjoy A Fish Called Wanda.

I had a glass (or two) of Chardonnay and enjoyed It's a Mad World - it doesn't look digital, it looks fantastic.
post #75 of 121
I saw this film a number of times during original release at the Indian Hills Cinerama Theater, one of the best theaters built for Cinerama and Cinerama 70. I have seen it since and owned several copies in home video format.

On my 10foot screen with FP DLP at 1080P, I am not seeing any clear evidence of digital manipulation of sharpness or grain. It is a very sharp picture, as I would expect considering it was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70.

The color is great. The contrast is a bit high but easily corrected. The sound is very nice, don't know what people are disappointed about in that department.

Of course, this is not the roadshow Cinerama version, but is a fine replication of the 35mm general release version.

I can get offended by edge enhancement but this isn't a case where I am either noticing it or would find it bad if I knew it was there. I was a theater projectionist during the period this film was released (although not this film) so I am fairly sensitive to what the films look like.

Sit back, stop worrying, and enjoy.
post #76 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

I saw this film a number of times during original release at the Indian Hills Cinerama Theater, one of the best theaters built for Cinerama and Cinerama 70. I have seen it since and owned several copies in home video format.

On my 10foot screen with FP DLP at 1080P, I am not seeing any clear evidence of digital manipulation of sharpness or grain. It is a very sharp picture, as I would expect considering it was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70.

The color is great. The contrast is a bit high but easily corrected. The sound is very nice, don't know what people are disappointed about in that department.

Of course, this is not the roadshow Cinerama version, but is a fine replication of the 35mm general release version.

I can get offended by edge enhancement but this isn't a case where I am either noticing it or would find it bad if I knew it was there. I was a theater projectionist during the period this film was released (although not this film) so I am fairly sensitive to what the films look like.

Sit back, stop worrying, and enjoy.

Not quite - this is the roadshow Cinerama presentation that the majority of people saw during its original run. VERY few people saw the longer version which opened in LA and a few other big cities in November of 1963. Mr. Kramer went in and shortened the film one month after it opened and that is the version that played all roadshow engagements from that point on - hence, if you didn't see it in the first month, you never saw the long version. So, what this is is the shortened roadshow version (shortened four weeks after it opened) that played in 70mm everywhere.
post #77 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Not quite - this is the roadshow Cinerama presentation that the majority of people saw during its original run. VERY few people saw the longer version which opened in LA and a few other big cities in November of 1963. Mr. Kramer went in and shortened the film one month after it opened and that is the version that played all roadshow engagements from that point on - hence, if you didn't see it in the first month, you never saw the long version. So, what this is is the shortened roadshow version (shortened four weeks after it opened) that played in 70mm everywhere.

You are quite correct. However, the version I saw in Cinerama 70 was longer than the 35mm version (which I also saw when the film was released in 35mm); this is what is on the Blu-ray basically.

I have the LD which has quite a bit of extra material. I am not sure anyone quite knows what these various versions were, I have heard many contradictory stories. Robert Harris has worked on it, perhaps he will figure it out.
post #78 of 121
Quote:
I am not seeing any clear evidence of digital manipulation of sharpness or grain. It is a very sharp picture, as I would expect considering it was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70.

The color is great. The contrast is a bit high but easily corrected. The sound is very nice, don't know what people are disappointed about in that department.

Sit back, stop worrying, and enjoy.

I agree completely. I sat down last night to take a look at it, and watched the whole thing, enthralled like I've never been with this film. This looks terrific, if all Blurays looked this good, I wouldn't be afraid to buy sight unseen.
post #79 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

You are quite correct. However, the version I saw in Cinerama 70 was longer than the 35mm version (which I also saw when the film was released in 35mm); this is what is on the Blu-ray basically.

I have the LD which has quite a bit of extra material. I am not sure anyone quite knows what these various versions were, I have heard many contradictory stories. Robert Harris has worked on it, perhaps he will figure it out.

I believe Robert Harris' timeline is posted in this thread. Unless you saw Mad World in the first four weeks of its initial roadshow release in November of 1963 then the version you saw in roadshow is exactly the same run time as the 35mm version with the exception of the overture, entr'acte, and playout music.
post #80 of 121
The longest quoted roadshow running time might have counted the audio of "police radio calls" during the intermission. It would be interesting to have that audio.
post #81 of 121
Finally watched this last night.
What an absolutely beautiful transfer and an honestly funny film that reveals human foibles in a way that allows you to like the characters.
Except for maybe Ethel Merman

Anyone not buying this due to whatever imagined deficiencies doesn't really love the art of film making imo, but would rather revel in irrelevant, non-existent nits.
You saved 10 whole dollars. Shazam!
post #82 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

Finally watched this last night.
What an absolutely beautiful transfer and an honestly funny film that reveals human foibles in a way that allows you to like the characters.
Except for maybe Ethel Merman

Anyone not buying this due to whatever imagined deficiencies doesn't really love the art of film making imo, but would rather revel in irrelevant, non-existent nits.
You saved 10 whole dollars. Shazam!

I had a master class today in a telecine room - in sharpening, grain removal and DNR and the resultant anomalies that occur from all. It was eye-opening and illuminating. The first lesson learned is that if sharpening and DNR is used carefully and modestly, the ONLY way you're going to see it is if you still frame and zoom until you see each and every pixel. In motion from a normal viewing distance - I don't think so.

The second lesson learned is if DNR and sharpening is applied with a trowel, yes it's quite obvious that there are halos and edge stuff.

On the screen they were working on a well-known film - they split the screen for me and yes the minute you apply grain removal it throws everything slightly out of focus (lack of detail you wags like to say), which is why they use sharpening to bring it back a bit. In each case, I preferred the grain to the slight grain removal.

Another interesting thing was, with another film they were adding light grain to the releasing studios logo (which is digital and new) so that it matched the grain coming into the main titles.

They also had some very old 30s documentary footage - it was interlaced and VERY grainy. In that case, the grain removal helped immeasurably and they were able to remove the interlacing artifacts, too, which was interesting to see.

Which brings me back to Mad World - I truly don't think any sharpening was put on the transfer (save for what Robert Harris says happens at the harvest stage, which is fairly normal) - I watched it again after my little master class and it looked great, very sharp but NOTHING artificial about that image at all.
post #83 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

I had a master class today in a telecine room - in sharpening, grain removal and DNR and the resultant anomalies that occur from all. It was eye-opening and illuminating. The first lesson learned is that if sharpening and DNR is used carefully and modestly, the ONLY way you're going to see it is if you still frame and zoom until you see each and every pixel. In motion from a normal viewing distance - I don't think so.

The second lesson learned is if DNR and sharpening is applied with a trowel, yes it's quite obvious that there are halos and edge stuff.

On the screen they were working on a well-known film - they split the screen for me and yes the minute you apply grain removal it throws everything slightly out of focus (lack of detail you wags like to say), which is why they use sharpening to bring it back a bit. In each case, I preferred the grain to the slight grain removal.

Another interesting thing was, with another film they were adding light grain to the releasing studios logo (which is digital and new) so that it matched the grain coming into the main titles.

They also had some very old 30s documentary footage - it was interlaced and VERY grainy. In that case, the grain removal helped immeasurably and they were able to remove the interlacing artifacts, too, which was interesting to see.

Which brings me back to Mad World - I truly don't think any sharpening was put on the transfer (save for what Robert Harris says happens at the harvest stage, which is fairly normal) - I watched it again after my little master class and it looked great, very sharp but NOTHING artificial about that image at all.

Interesting to read, thanks for posting this.
I also watched this again yesterday, the second time since I bought it.
Once again I often found myself paying more attention to how good the quality of the picture is, rather than watching the movie.
If this had cost me $25 instead of $10, it would still have been money well spent.
post #84 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

The first lesson learned is that if sharpening and DNR is used carefully and modestly, the ONLY way you're going to see it is if you still frame and zoom until you see each and every pixel. In motion from a normal viewing distance - I don't think so..


Which begs the question, why use it at all?


Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

On the screen they were working on a well-known film - they split the screen for me and yes the minute you apply grain removal it throws everything slightly out of focus (lack of detail you wags like to say), which is why they use sharpening to bring it back a bit. In each case, I preferred the grain to the slight grain removal.

ACK!!! I hope that's not a film I am interested in!! Who was teaching this class, the Universal transfer tech?
post #85 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Which begs the question, why use it at all?




ACK!!! I hope that's not a film I am interested in!! Who was teaching this class, the Universal transfer tech?

It's the studios that ask for the work, the techs just perform it, although at this particular lab they are VERY good and do not go overboard. As to why use it in the first place - I suppose they feel it helps smooth out the film from blemishes, and it does if applied subtly and IF applied subtly no one would really notice the work at all. The film in question has a lot of rear projection and special effects shots.

It was really interesting to see the demo and I asked endless questions and I had a really good time. I then asked the tech to watch something with me and he did and he gave me the answer I wanted - that what we were watching was fine without anything done to it.
post #86 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

i saw this film a number of times during original release at the indian hills cinerama theater, one of the best theaters built for cinerama and cinerama 70. I have seen it since and owned several copies in home video format.

On my 10foot screen with fp dlp at 1080p, i am not seeing any clear evidence of digital manipulation of sharpness or grain. It is a very sharp picture, as i would expect considering it was filmed in ultra panavision 70.

The color is great. The contrast is a bit high but easily corrected. The sound is very nice, don't know what people are disappointed about in that department.

Of course, this is not the roadshow cinerama version, but is a fine replication of the 35mm general release version.

I can get offended by edge enhancement but this isn't a case where i am either noticing it or would find it bad if i knew it was there. I was a theater projectionist during the period this film was released (although not this film) so i am fairly sensitive to what the films look like.

Sit back, stop worrying, and enjoy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin korom View Post

i agree completely. I sat down last night to take a look at it, and watched the whole thing, enthralled like i've never been with this film. This looks terrific, if all blurays looked this good, i wouldn't be afraid to buy sight unseen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milt99 View Post

finally watched this last night.
What an absolutely beautiful transfer and an honestly funny film that reveals human foibles in a way that allows you to like the characters.
Except for maybe ethel merman

anyone not buying this due to whatever imagined deficiencies doesn't really love the art of film making imo, but would rather revel in irrelevant, non-existent nits.
You saved 10 whole dollars. Shazam!

+1!!!
post #87 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Which begs the question, why use it at all?

It's a useful photographic tool. When used with a subtle touch it does make the image visibly sharper and gives it more "bite", so to speak, without giving it a "processed" look. It can compensate for soft optics to some degree, and makes prints more punchy.

However, I don't think it has any place in remastering older movies past compensating for scanner optics, since that wasn't something they could do in the lab. And with a film source your sharpening latitude is a lot less since you bring out a lot of grain and even scanner noise along with detail.
post #88 of 121
Sorry for the OT but I don't really know where to ask this question.
Hoping perhaps that haines or Robert could lend some insight.

I've noticed that films from a certain time period have what I describe as a "clean" look to them. Whether it's from set design or cinematography, lighting, lenses or all of them or none of them.

Mostly these are from the mid to late 50's to early 60's.

IAMMMMW is one example. Auntie Mame is another one as is Sound of Music

Maybe I'm way off here but everything looks new, fresh and clean(polished?).
This is not a case of excessive DNR so please no wax comments
It's not due to HD because these films have the same overall look on TV or DVD.

Niagara is another one. There are others but I can't think of them off hand.

Any ideas?
post #89 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post
It was really interesting to see the demo and I asked endless questions and I had a really good time. I then asked the tech to watch something with me and he did and he gave me the answer I wanted - that what we were watching was fine without anything done to it.
Wasn't BTTF, by any chance?
post #90 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post
IAMMMMW is one example. Auntie Mame is another one as is Sound of Music
Well, all those were shot on 65mm or 8-perf 35mm negatives... not sure about Niagara.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World